Solipsist9@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-04-13 16:03:27 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
> wilson) writes:
>
> << yes, i am saying that there is a common "common sense". we all have
> >it. please do not confuse sociocultural "common sense" with a human
> >based common sense. foucault's disdain for a universal morality is, i
> >believe, what you are talking about here. this kind of common sense is,
> >to me, not natural. there is no such thing as a universal culture. but
> >there are universal common sensical notions: ethnocentricity;
> >similarity and dissimilarity; mathematics; supernatural; society; etc.
> >it is common sense that to kill those one associates with is harmful,
> >period. to kill others includes the notion that they deserve to be
> >killed or that they are less than human. do you suppose that such
> >qualifications are necessary for a person to kill another person? or do
> >you believe that there are necessary qualifications to keep from killing
> >people? it seems that the latter assumption is untenable, while a
> >perponderence of the evidence shows that the former is at least more
> >realistic. >>
>
> preponderence of evidence? since you won't listen to reason and the
> POSSIBILITY of premises other than yours or that yours CAN be false, i say:
> PROVE there is a universal common sense
> PROVE there is a universal human nature
> PROVE there is a universal anything
>
> now if you prove such things exist (or prove that their non-existence is not
> even a possibility, logically or otherwise) everyone who has this human
> nature and common sense, both being universal and a quality of every single
> human being, should be able to agree with you. if not, either you are right
> and many are wrong, or you are wrong and many are right. if you admit at
> least the possibility that you may be wrong, you've defeated your own
> argument and i commend you. since i, among others, agree that there are no
> universals, how can you be so sure that there are? btw, mathematics is a
> human constructed relationship.
> john
> solipsist9@xxxxxxx
ok, here's proof: people around the world smile when they're happy, and
this true of all emotions with their corresponding gestures; the
principles of mathematics are universal, in other owrds logic is
universal, and not even close to being arbitrary; everybody knows that
humans mutually recognize each other's humanity. i could go on, but i
don't need to so. with these three examples i can clear up your
confusion between human universality and relativity.
because humans have the profound ability of interpretation, which
entails encoding and decoding, certail lines of reality are blurred.
for example, in the 40's and 50's anthropologists illustrated by means
of photographs and films that people around the world smile and cry just
like we do here in america. when people in somalia are happy they
smile, when sad they cry. anthropology proved that there is a common
humanity, i.e. human nature, that we all share. by proving this, a lot
of the racist beliefs in this country were deflated and proved absurd.
psychology, which i am not very familiar with but i accept on good
faith, also can show a "human nature."
in other words, there are NATURAL workings of the human mind that lead
us to realize the same things. mathematics is one that comes from the
natural workings of the mind. language is another. and although each
of these has to be taught, the psychical processes--logic and the
concepts of similarity and dissimilarity to name two--that allow for
them to be learned are universal. algebra, geometry, triginometry, and
calculus are the same in bali, china, britain, etc. why? because of
certain universal workings of the human mind. and this brings us to our
recognizing each other's humanity, which is less tenable with all the
violence in world, but is nevertheless truthful in my opinion. but you
obliously disagree, and that's fine. however, can you really say that
there are not human universals?
anyway, i believe that since we are all human(hey, another universal),
this has to mean something and not nothing. and something, only one of
many, that we all share is realizing that when i hurt you it hurts you
the same way that it would hurt me. in fact, babies have to learn about
pain, rather about its correlation with certain sequences of events and
actions. but they don't have to learn empathy. while some people may
not have sympathy, which has been obscured by hate that they learned,
everyone has empathy. we realize that since we are all human that we
share certain eomtions and expectations and needs. hence the reason why
not killing is natural, and why killing, which here in my example of
empathy is analogous to suicide, is not natural.
>
> In a message dated 97-04-13 16:03:27 EDT, lobster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mitchell
> wilson) writes:
>
> << yes, i am saying that there is a common "common sense". we all have
> >it. please do not confuse sociocultural "common sense" with a human
> >based common sense. foucault's disdain for a universal morality is, i
> >believe, what you are talking about here. this kind of common sense is,
> >to me, not natural. there is no such thing as a universal culture. but
> >there are universal common sensical notions: ethnocentricity;
> >similarity and dissimilarity; mathematics; supernatural; society; etc.
> >it is common sense that to kill those one associates with is harmful,
> >period. to kill others includes the notion that they deserve to be
> >killed or that they are less than human. do you suppose that such
> >qualifications are necessary for a person to kill another person? or do
> >you believe that there are necessary qualifications to keep from killing
> >people? it seems that the latter assumption is untenable, while a
> >perponderence of the evidence shows that the former is at least more
> >realistic. >>
>
> preponderence of evidence? since you won't listen to reason and the
> POSSIBILITY of premises other than yours or that yours CAN be false, i say:
> PROVE there is a universal common sense
> PROVE there is a universal human nature
> PROVE there is a universal anything
>
> now if you prove such things exist (or prove that their non-existence is not
> even a possibility, logically or otherwise) everyone who has this human
> nature and common sense, both being universal and a quality of every single
> human being, should be able to agree with you. if not, either you are right
> and many are wrong, or you are wrong and many are right. if you admit at
> least the possibility that you may be wrong, you've defeated your own
> argument and i commend you. since i, among others, agree that there are no
> universals, how can you be so sure that there are? btw, mathematics is a
> human constructed relationship.
> john
> solipsist9@xxxxxxx
ok, here's proof: people around the world smile when they're happy, and
this true of all emotions with their corresponding gestures; the
principles of mathematics are universal, in other owrds logic is
universal, and not even close to being arbitrary; everybody knows that
humans mutually recognize each other's humanity. i could go on, but i
don't need to so. with these three examples i can clear up your
confusion between human universality and relativity.
because humans have the profound ability of interpretation, which
entails encoding and decoding, certail lines of reality are blurred.
for example, in the 40's and 50's anthropologists illustrated by means
of photographs and films that people around the world smile and cry just
like we do here in america. when people in somalia are happy they
smile, when sad they cry. anthropology proved that there is a common
humanity, i.e. human nature, that we all share. by proving this, a lot
of the racist beliefs in this country were deflated and proved absurd.
psychology, which i am not very familiar with but i accept on good
faith, also can show a "human nature."
in other words, there are NATURAL workings of the human mind that lead
us to realize the same things. mathematics is one that comes from the
natural workings of the mind. language is another. and although each
of these has to be taught, the psychical processes--logic and the
concepts of similarity and dissimilarity to name two--that allow for
them to be learned are universal. algebra, geometry, triginometry, and
calculus are the same in bali, china, britain, etc. why? because of
certain universal workings of the human mind. and this brings us to our
recognizing each other's humanity, which is less tenable with all the
violence in world, but is nevertheless truthful in my opinion. but you
obliously disagree, and that's fine. however, can you really say that
there are not human universals?
anyway, i believe that since we are all human(hey, another universal),
this has to mean something and not nothing. and something, only one of
many, that we all share is realizing that when i hurt you it hurts you
the same way that it would hurt me. in fact, babies have to learn about
pain, rather about its correlation with certain sequences of events and
actions. but they don't have to learn empathy. while some people may
not have sympathy, which has been obscured by hate that they learned,
everyone has empathy. we realize that since we are all human that we
share certain eomtions and expectations and needs. hence the reason why
not killing is natural, and why killing, which here in my example of
empathy is analogous to suicide, is not natural.